JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The learned Additional District Magistrate (Executive) of Keonjhar has made this reference recommending the quashing of a final order in a proceeding u/s 145, Code of Criminal Procedure. The disputed property is 9. 14 acres divided into 20 plots as indicated in the preliminary order. After the matter was enquired into by the learned Magistrate he upheld the possession of the opposite parties. 2. Three reasons have mainly been advanced by the learned Additional District Magistrate in support of his recommendation: (1) The learned Magistrate has relied on documentary evidence which has not been exhibited: (2) The disputed land was not properly determined during enquiry; and (3) The disputed land having not been properly defined with proper delimitations the order delivering possession to the second party is incomprehensive. 3. Apart from these three grounds Mr. G.G. Das appearing for the Petitioner wanted to contend that this was a case where one combined proceeding was not tenable in view of the fact that the members of the second party laid claim to portions of the disputed property. There was, therefore, not one dispute but many disputes and as such initiation of separate proceedings was warranted. 4. Let me first deal with the grounds taken in the order of reference. The disputed property was described in the preliminary order as whole plots. No objection was raised during the proceeding about any error in the description of the property. On the other hand; the first party in his written statement appended Schedule B giving the boundaries of each of the plots and making the description of the property very definite and clear. In view of him own written statement I do not think the learned Additional District Magistrate was justified in holding that there was difficulty in identification of the property. 5. The only reason upon which the learned Additional District Magistrate came to his conclusion about the difficultly in identification was the police report during attachment of the property in the proceeding. The police reported that be could attach only 10 plots measuring 4. 17 acres. Thus there was difficulty about the identity of ten other plots with a total area of 4. 97 acres. The police has not, been examined in this case. The police reported that be could attach only 10 plots measuring 4. 17 acres. Thus there was difficulty about the identity of ten other plots with a total area of 4. 97 acres. The police has not, been examined in this case. It is not known whether the failure to attach the remaining property was on account of no proper attention being given to comply with the direction of the learned Magistrate. In view of the fact that there was no dispute raised by the parties about want of identification of property on account of erroneous description and consequent scope for prejudice I do not think on the basis of the police report a case for a reference could have been made out. That point, therefore, must stand rejected as being without any substance. 6. Another ground of the learned Additional District Magistrate was that the documents have not been properly exhibited. In support of his conclusion he relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge in this Court reported in Kusi Swain v. Madan Mohan Mahanty 1965 C.L.T. 761. That decision was not accepted as laying down a good law by a Division Bench of this Court in Gopi Harichandan v. Ramakrishna Palta Singh 1967 C.L.T. 1098. The learned Additional District Magistrate was obviously not given proper assistance by the counsel appearing before him in support of the revision petition and he omitted to consider the latest decision indicating the proper law by a larger Bench of this Court. That ground is, therefore, not sustainable. 7. The third ground was that the disputed land was not properly determined during enquiry. I do not find any necessity to bestow any independent consideration to this ground because this must be taken to be the same as want of proper identification. The grounds raised in support of the reference must, therefore, stand vacated. Though normally a reference is considered on the basis of the recommendation of the referring Court, in view of the fact that Mr. Das raised an additional point I would now deal with his contention made here about the non-maintainability of a combined proceeding in this case. The claim in this case on behalf of one party was to the entire property while the members of the other party laid claim to parcels of the disputed land. Das raised an additional point I would now deal with his contention made here about the non-maintainability of a combined proceeding in this case. The claim in this case on behalf of one party was to the entire property while the members of the other party laid claim to parcels of the disputed land. Thus it was not a case of mutual disputes in regard to parcels of the disputed property. The competition of claim was on one side to the whole and on the other to portions. To such a case the principle indicated in Ratan Majhi and Ors. v. Budu Rondhari and Ors. would fully apply. It is true in this Court on some occasions there have been decisions to show that even when there is a dispute in regard to the entire property on one side and disputes confined to different portions thereof on the other, different proceedings are warranted. On a proper analysis the real principles seems to be that only when there would be mutuality of disputes in regard to portions of the disputed property they would become separate disputes; otherwise there would be a lot of inconvenience particularly for that party who has a total claim to the entire property, to fight many disputes in regard to the same property over which he has only a single claim. I would, accordingly, keeping in view the decision by Panigrahi, C.J., in Ratan Majhi and Ors. v. Budu Rondhari and Ors. negative the contention of Mr. Das. In view of my earlier conclusion that the reference was without justification and in view of my negativing the plea raised by Mr. Das, this reference must stand discharged. I accordingly discharge the reference.